That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.
Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz
http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club
and where is AMDs marketing?
why create such products yet spend more time saying what you're gonna do next in graphs.
In highly threaded apps yes it may have some advantage but it will fall flat in the rest of them.Why buy a processor which will be slower in most of the scenarios?(for general purpose anyway). Look what Apple did with A6 which is ruining the fun for all quad core chips out there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.
But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.
Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.
I think the majority of benches that an 8350 beats a 2500K at factory clocks, it'll also beat it when both are overclocked. The 2500K may catch in in a few, but overall I doubt the picture changes much, both will win and lose in most of the same places. I'll agree that the 2500K probably catches up as it can overclock to a higher percentage vs. its factory clock.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the 8350 is better than a 2500K, or most certainly not an i7. But in the places where the eight cores to in fact get used, I don't think the extra percentage of overclocking a 2500K can achieve is going to change things most of the time.
But my point really wasn't about which chip is better. The point I was trying to make is that I don't feel like those who post positively about the current FX line up do so while overlooking the Intel K chips ability to overclock. I feel the FX 6300 is actually a better choice than the i3, as long as you can live with the potentially higher power draw. I think the 8350 *may* be a better choice than the 2500K for some people depending on what they are aiming to do with the computer. I don't think overclocking those chips or not overclocking changes that, generally speaking.
Or the short version, when someone recommends an AMD part, I don't think it means that they are necessarily ignoring the fact that Intel can overclock.
before my time, context please?
wikipedia said:On April 7, 2003, two days before Baghdad fell to US forces, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. He made this statement while standing on the east bank of the Dijli (Tigris) River in the center of Baghdad. His back was to the river and reporters could see two American Army M1 Abrams tanks behind him on a road on the far side of the river. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".
That was more valid maybe with the 8150, not Vishera.
Plus a member on OCN has an 8320 @ 5.3ghz
http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-8350-vishera-owners-club
There are tons of members out there of various sites with SB and even IB at a good bit past 5Ghz+, but I don't count them, as they are either running unsafe volts and/or extreme cooling + suicide run.
Also, have you seen the power usage start to explode on 8350 past 4.5Ghz? It goes up really fast really high. At 5.3Ghz it would probably be way over 300W for CPU alone, maybe even closing on 400W. Regardless, 4.8-4.9 seems to be the high end of air overclock with good cooling for 8350, and even at there it sucks a TON of juice.
Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
Why is it that a lot of people can care less with their graphics cards use a ton of power. This 7950 uses a ton of power but I don't really mind.
They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.
More than in half when taking OCing into account, these chips are not worth bothering with to OC due to the absurd power useage numbers.
Some might say the same about an i7 930 @ 4.2GHz and 1.35 volts.
For the record I pretty much agree with you, AMD's power consumption is the biggest problem in my opinion. More so than overall performance.
They are never going to be competative with intel till they cut their power useage in half.
I am aware my 930@1.35v is sucking back the juice, but so was everything else 3-4 years ago We aint talking about 3-4 year old tech anymore though AMD has to get with the times.
That was the decision - buy ATI and sell-off the fabs, or invest $5.4B into the future of process technology. Intel decided to go with the process technology choice and it shows.